Full details f------ s---”. He began to head towards the tunnel when he then turned back towards myself and said “f------- cheat”. I then upgraded the card from yellow to red.

The Panel believe your actions were unnecessary and are against the true spirit of the game.

In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade F offence – Questioning the integrity of a Match Official

The normal suspension range for such offence is 6 matches plus.

• The Match Review Panel were concerned at the behaviour of Mr Griffin.

• Mr Griffin was firstly sin binned and then red carded following the incident.

• The referee’s report states the following f------ s---”. He began to head towards the tunnel when he then turned back towards myself and said, “f------ cheat”. I then upgraded the card from yellow to red.

• The Match Review Panel see no reason to disbelieve the referee.

• The footage supports that there is clear interaction between both Mr Kendall and Mr Griffin, and this is initiated by the player.

• Mr Kendall is clear that he says he witnesses Mr Griffin state these words.

• This amounts to abusive behaviour towards the referee and questioning his integrity.

• The Panel believed that Mr Griffin’s actions were unnecessary, against the true spirit of the game and brings the game into disrepute.

• Under 1.2 of the On Field Sentencing Guidelines it states that the disciplinary system must support and protect Match Officials.

• Mr Griffin’s standards have fallen below what is expected of a player and amount to Misconduct.

- Grade F due to:
? Questioning the integrity of a referee.
? Repeated foul and abusive language towards referee.
? Brings sport into disrepute.
Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence:


Player in attendance alongside James Clark (JC, Hull FC CEO). Player pleads guilty to using offensive language towards the Referee, but not questioning his integrity.

Both the Compliance Manager and JC were invited to cross examine Chris Kendall (Referee) who joined the hearing as a witness. Adam Swift and Davy Litten (teammates of JG) were also called to give evidence.

JG did not deny exchanging words with CK, however, he was adamant that the words that he had been charged of using were not correct.

JG explained he approached CK after the half-time hooter had gone to speak to him about a penalty that had just been given for a ball steal, saying “Sir, how can you give that as a ball steal?”

He then admitted to saying “f------ s--- call” and walked away towards the changing rooms. He was then called back by CK and shown a yellow card. Annoyed by the situation he walked away and as doing so said “f--- sake, can’t talk to the arrogant prick.”

CK then called out to him and again and gave him a red card. JG walked off and said “f--- that” as he was frustrated with himself.

JC explained it was the final year of JG’s contract and the consequences of the charge were very high. He believed that there was not enough evidence to prove that CK was called a “cheat.”

JG told the Tribunal he was embarrassed by the charge and it was something he had to live with. It was an intense game and could be the last chance for him to win the Challenge Cup. There was a lot of raw emotion and he also felt he had let his teammates down. He had faced criticism following the incident and was remorseful for how things had turned out. He felt that his emotions had clouded his judgement.

Decision:

Guilty
Reasons for Decision:

This is a very serious incident and they adopt the seriousness of events as put forward by the Compliance Manager. The Referee proved to be a credible witness when questioned and he was sure the words were said by the player. The Tribunal deemed JG not to be credible witness.
Decision On Sanction (where found to have committed Misconduct)
Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction:


• Continuous foul abusive behaviour towards a Referee
• Comments abusive of performance and questions integrity
• Comments not made in the heat of the moment as the penalty was given before the half-time hooter and the player had time to calm down
• A breach of the RESPECT Policy
• Brings the game into disrepute
• Potential to affect recruitment and retention of Referees in the sport
Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction:

JC said he respected the Tribunal’s decision. He added that JG was out of contract at the end of the season and with just 12 games remaining a suspension as large as has been suggested by the Compliance Manager would not leave much of the season remaining.

JC felt that a lower suspension would be more appropriate and also asked if the Tribunal would consider going outside the grading in this instance.
Reasons for Decision:

The Tribunal agree with the grading at Grade F and they have taken into account the players previous similar charge earlier this season as well as his denial to the words used.
Suspension:

7 matches

Griffins version is out now . Also Clark says it's Griffins last year of his contract .

So reading that, there isn't actually a single bit of audio evidence of what was said?
Which would mean Griffin has been banned for 7 games based on something Kendall has 'POTENTIALLY' misheard of even made up.
Granted if Griffin's version is true it should still be worth a couple of games. But if there is no categorical proof he used the word cheat then 7 matches is a joke.

"The match review panel see no reason to disbelieve the referee".... what, not even a history of getting this exact type of thing wrong?

I will need to watch the footage again but don’t recall Griffin turning back to Kendall after he showed the yellow card? Kendall claims he turned back and called him a “f————ng cheat “. From memory Griffin walked off and was called back by Kendall?

Here's the clip

rlhttps://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/1670075220474970118?s

Griffin has been 4/10 for FC since signing
he’s 33
he’s a liability
why sign this guy for any longer ?

get a 23 year old ambitious kid from
the Championship

So basically very little evidence only that Kendal was sure.
Seems like a stitch up to me to give Griffin 7.5 games when there is no evidence to corroborate what was said or even claimed to have been said.
So in essence Kendal says it happened and that’s the gospel according the panel as for saying Kendals was a credible witness when he has form for mishearing previously as per Bateman.

Be interesting to know what Swifty & Litten as witnesses said and what witness Kendal had.

I’d say whichever version was said it’s certainly an accurate description of Kendal.

No wonder fans think the game and officials are bent.

Something just doesn’t feel right about Kendals version when you watch all the coverage of the interaction.

As that’s the official outcome I’m disappointed the club aren’t appealing the severity of the charge and subsequent punishment with the apparent lack of evidence to support either sides version.

Forceful Spear tackle with high risk of serious injury, causing paralysis or broken neck 6 game ban.
Possibly say something about the referees integrity but no one on the panel can be certain equates to a 7 game ban.

Now tell me who the RFL care about as it certainly isn’t about player safety. No doubt the lawyers looking in to this on behalf of the players bringing the courts case will seize in this.

What a lovin joke.

If Kendalls version doesnt sit right
what about Griffins version Sir, how can you give that as a ball steal?

https://twitter.com/AaronBower/status/1 ... Nbb_g&s=19

https://twitter.com/AaronBower/status/1 ... Nbb_g&s=19

The bigger joke was that to prevent all this was all Griffin needed to do was shut the ferkin up.

It was a nothing penalty with no consequences.

The hooter had gone and there was no reason to be so out of control.

Even at the point of getting a yellow he could have stepped back.

Griffin manufactured the whole incident and just had a full on brain explosion.

I've never seen a player so wound up with a decision of so little consequence after the hooter.

Its not like it was after a fight or a controversial try. It was a nothing decision and Griffin just needed to follow the basics of all rugby and don't question the ref.

As fans we can call the ref, as club officials they can question decisions post match. Players can't and doing over so little just was something I've never seen before and doubt I'll ever see again.

I think Griffins main problem will have been yes it was a nothing penalty with no consequences but when they’re constantly given + things being penalised that straight up never happened they start to add up. When you’re feeling hard done too & penalised out of the game frustrations boil over.

Like I said both versions differ and with what appears to be no evidence to corroborate either side I don’t see how they can prove either way any version.

I think Griffin was daft to have carried it on however I still question the speed at which the red card came out whilst he was walking away. I don’t doubt things were said but watching the footage I’m not sure Kendals version is wholly correct either.

An official should be able to de escalate situations like this one when players are clearly frustrated but Kendal almost escalated it.

As for a nothing decision with no cost he argued over, I think it’s was just the number of decisions that seemed to be in St’s favour with penalties & 6 agains etc in the first half that culminated in Griffin questioning Kendal. To be honest I even thought the call of ball steal was harsh as you can see Hurrell pull away and then let go of the ball, which is another tactic of conning the ref that's crept in.

With no evidence other than the word of someone who himself has previous I find it difficult the panel can warrant both a grade F charge or a 7 game ban for what is nothing more than hear say.

I'm not going to crucify Griffin for showing some passion as we've been asking players to do that for the last 4+ seasons and he was probably feeling exactly how we all felt watching it. I'm not defending him either for the way in which he questioned but understand his frustration, I am just dubious of a serious charge and punishment simply on the word of one person saying they heard, the same with the second ban handed to McGuire.
Yes Griffin has previously had a yellow for giving Moore some back chat but that isn't the same level as questioning the referees integrity so the Panel saying they've taken his previous in to account when deciding the punishment seems at odds or does Griffin have season on season previous to warrant it? No Yet the panel seem to think that they can take a players previous indiscretion in to account but not an official who was proven to have mis heard a player previously.

This is why I think the system stinks.

Talking about the half-time 'hooter' going........Have you seen the size of the one on Kendall?